alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020399EN.01002601.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v ECB

(Case T-145/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments - Tasks entrusted to the ECB - Specific supervision powers of the ECB - Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital - Absence of individual examination)

(2020/C 399/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Paris, France) and the 37 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou, R. Bax and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment, first, of ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of 19 December 2017, and, second, of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCMU-4 of 14 February 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls paragraph 8 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and paragraph 5 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCMU-4 of the ECB of 14 February 2019; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls paragraph 8 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and paragraph 5 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCMU-4 of the ECB of 14 February 2019;

| 2. | Orders the ECB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the ECB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---
# C_2021278EN.01000401.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania v Assessorato della Salute della Regione Siciliana

(Case C-128/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Agriculture sector - Slaughtering of animals affected by infectious diseases - Compensation for farmers - Notification and standstill requirements - Article 108(3) TFEU - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Exemptions by categories of aid - Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 - De minimis aid - Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013)

(2021/C 278/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania

Defendant: Assessorato della Salute della Regione Siciliana

Intervener: AU

Operative part of the judgment

Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a measure introduced by a Member State to finance, for a period extending over several years and up to a maximum amount of EUR 20 million, both compensation to support farmers who have been obliged to slaughter animals affected by infectious diseases and payment of fees due to self-employed veterinary surgeons involved in remediation activities, must be subject to the preliminary-examination procedure laid down in that provision in the case where that measure is not covered by an authorisation decision of the European Commission to that effect, unless that measure fulfils the conditions laid down by Commission Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 of 25 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU], or the conditions laid down by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] to de minimis aid in the agriculture sector.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (e)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which the
annual report is being prepared;(f)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(g)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual
report based on such evaluation; and(h)
    
    Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most fourth fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  (c)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(d)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
 Date: December 28, 2005/s/ Daniel J. ReganDaniel J. ReganVice President andChief Financial OfficerGreat Western Land and Recreation, Inc.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference of our report dated  February 22,
2005 except as to Note R, the date of which is March 31,  2005,  on our audit of
the  consolidated  financial  statements  of  Milestone  Scientific,   Inc.  and
Subsidiaries  as of December  31,  2004 and for the year then ended  included in
this Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB,  in the  following  Registration  Statement
previously  filed by  Milestone  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission
pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 on Form S-3 (SEC File no. 333-118807). We
also consent to the reference to our firm as experts in Form S-3.


/s/ Eisner LLP

New York, New York
April 1, 2005


                                       41
# C_2018436EN.01006302.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/63

---

Action brought on 15 October 2018 — TUIfly v Commission

(Case T-619/18)

(2018/C 436/88)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: TUIfly GmbH (Langenhagen, Germany) (represented by: L. Giesberts and M. Gayger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s Decision C(2018) 5432 final of 3 August 2018 on the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — GESTDEM 2018/2506 and order the defendant to grant the applicant access to the documents in the proceedings relating to State aid SA.24221(2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Austria for the Klagenfurt airport, Ryanair and other airlines using the airport (OJ 2018 L 107, p. 1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s Decision C(2018) 5432 final of 3 August 2018 on the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — GESTDEM 2018/2506 and order the defendant to grant the applicant access to the documents in the proceedings relating to State aid SA.24221(2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Austria for the Klagenfurt airport, Ryanair and other airlines using the airport (OJ 2018 L 107, p. 1);

| — | join the present case to the applicant’s case pending before the General Court with case number T-447/18 against the defendant for the purposes of the written and oral procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

join the present case to the applicant’s case pending before the General Court with case number T-447/18 against the defendant for the purposes of the written and oral procedure;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claim is based on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of sound administration and the applicant’s rights of defence, as the Commission did not grant the applicant access to the investigation documents and failed to place it in a position in which it could properly defend itself.

---
Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT

OF THE

EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

This AMENDMENT of the Executive Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) by and between Cardinal Financial Corporation, a Virginia corporation (“Cardinal”), and Bernard H. Clineburg (“you” and all similar references), collectively the “parties”, is entered into and is effective as of December 21, 2016.

 

WHEREAS, you and Cardinal are parties to an Executive Employment Agreement dated as of November 1, 2010 (as amended on November 13, 2012 and on February 10, 2016, the “Employment Agreement”),

 

WHEREAS, Cardinal is a party to that certain Agreement and Plan of Reorganization, dated as of August 17, 2016, by and among United Bankshares, Inc., UBV Holding Company, LLC, and Cardinal (the “Merger Agreement”),

 

WHEREAS, the Merger Agreement requires Cardinal to amend the Employment Agreement consistent with the terms of Section 7.10(d) of the disclosure schedules attached to the Merger Agreement, and

 

WHEREAS, you and Cardinal desire to amend the Employment Agreement by this Amendment.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and obligations of Cardinal and you and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows.

 

1.              Section 2.3(v) of the Employment Agreement is amended to add the following sentence to the end thereof:

 

“On or before March 15, 2017, the Company shall transfer ownership of Clineburg’s Company-owned automobile to Clineburg, with appropriate tax treatment.”

 

2.              The portion of the first sentence of Section 6.2 of the Employment Agreement which precedes subsection (i) therein is replaced with the following:

 

“During the term of this Agreement and throughout any further period that he is an officer or employee of the Company, and for a period of two years from and after the date that Clineburg is no longer employed by the Company, or for a period of two years from the date of entry by a court of competent jurisdiction of a final judgment enforcing this covenant in the event of a breach by Clineburg, whichever is later, Clineburg covenants and agrees that he will not, directly or indirectly, either as a principal or employee:”

 











 

3.              Except as amended by this Amendment, the terms of the Employment Agreement remain in effect.

 

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
CARDINAL FINANCIAL   CORPORATION
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Bernard H. Clineburg
    	
 
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   William G. Buck
    
	
Bernard   H. Clineburg
    	
 
    	
 
    	
William   G. Buck
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Chairman   of the Compensation Committee
# C_2020103EN.01002001.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-166/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Renewal of the listing of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Obligation for the Council to communicate the new elements justifying the renewal of the restrictive measures - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Right to respect for private and family life - Proportionality - Presumption of innocence - Plea of illegality)

(2020/C 103/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, H. Marcos Fraile and S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2017 L 328, p. 19), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

       THE RED TAPE REDUCTION AND SMALL BUSINESS JOB CREATION ACT

  (Mr. ROKITA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Red 
Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act. Time and again I 
hear from my constituents that they want to hire more workers, but they 
don't know what regulation is going to be coming down the pike next.
  Congress does not spend enough time fulfilling its constitutional 
responsibility of overseeing the executive branch. This is why, a 
little more than a year ago, in partnership with the Indiana Chamber of 
Commerce, we started Indiana's Red Tape Rollback Program to listen to 
Hoosiers, take their regulatory concerns to Washington, and get 
results.
  This, Mr. Speaker is our annual report. This is a page from that 
report, about 26 pages long.
  Regulatory burdens are equal opportunity. They don't affect one 
industry or type of people. Regulatory burdens hurt agriculture, 
transportation, and even our home health care workers, who fear they 
won't be able to care for their clients. They hurt everybody.
  I'm pleased that we have achieved a victory in 20 of our cases, and 
we will continue charging forward. I will continue to talk about the 
harm of overregulation and what it does to our economy. I will continue 
to advocate for a limited government, and I will continue to roll back 
the red tape.
  You can get the report at rokita.house.gov.

                          ____________________
```
#### Midler v. Century 21 Ann Davidson, Inc.

21080

11/20/98

Vacated & Remanded
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 FOR PW PREFERRED YIELD FUND II, L.P. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,251,799
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,369,429
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (200,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,438,800
<PP&E>                                      31,467,372
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,870,897<F3>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,035,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          973,739
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,061,541<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,035,280
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,794,825
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,127,252
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,388
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                638,185
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            638,185
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   638,185
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    10.21<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>INCOME PER UNIT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST.
<F2>INCLUDES PARTNERS CAPITAL AND ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND DISTRIBUTION TO
PARTNERS.
<F3>INCLUDES WRITEOFFS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James O. Hall, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Wexner, J.), rendered January 29, 1990, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of his right to testify before the Grand Jury. A hearing was held on September 5, 1989, at which the defendant and Brian Davis, the attorney who was assigned to represent him following his arrest, testified. Davis’s testimony clearly established that the defendant was notified of his right to testify before the Grand Jury and that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived that right. Much weight is to be accorded to the determination of the hearing court, with its advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses, and its findings will not be set aside unless they are clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759; *People v Moore,*161 AD2d 733). We cannot conclude from this record that the hearing court erred in crediting Davis’s testimony rather than that of the defendant *(see, People v Moore, supra).*

The defendant contends that the jury should not have believed the People’s main witnesses because they were interested witnesses who tailored their testimony to conceal that the complainant was the initial aggressor. However, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be *880accorded great weight on appeal and should not be overturned unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88).

The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). The testimony of the People’s witnesses clearly establishes that, on the evening of December 16, 1988, the defendant was in possession of a fillet knife which he used to stab the complainant twice in the face. The attack against the complainant was unprovoked and resulted in physical injury to him. The evidence also establishes that, on the same evening, the defendant, in an effort to avoid arrest, lunged at the arresting officer with the same knife, thus giving rise to two separate and distinct offenses *(cf., Matter of Johnson v Morgenthau,*69 NY2d 148; Donnino, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 85.10, at 379).

The defendant’s sentence was proper *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, do not warrant reversal. Eiber, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Unify Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January
31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Todd E. Wille, Chief Executive Officer of the
Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:

(1) the Report
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

|Dated: February 27, 2009 | /s/ TODD E. WILLE            
|------------------------ | -----------------------------
|                         | Todd E. Wille                
|                         | Chief Executive
      Officer

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,
has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
January 2023

There were 11 surveillance inspections conducted at 8 different sites for a total of 

100 fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities. 

The water temperatures continued to decrease due to colder air temperatures. 

Routine harvest continued. One site was Category 2 and will conduct biweekly 

sampling, along with the other active site in the same bay. All other sites with fish in 

the water remained Category 1 and were scheduled for monthly sampling.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

February 2022 90 0 24611

March 2022 98 0 24709

April 2022 69 0 24778

May 2022 55 0 24833

June 2022 104 0 24937

July 2022 120 1 25057

August 2022 81 0 25138

September 2022 74 0 25212

October 2022 66 0 25278

November 2022 55 0 25333

December 2022 69 0 25402

January 2023 100 0 25502